David Irving - Can you trust ANYTHING he wrote?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 окт 2024
- Can you trust ANYTHING that David Irving wrote? In 1996, David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel (in the "Irving vs Penguin Books Ltd" trial) because Deborah Lipstadt had said Irving was a Holocaust Denier. Historian Richard Evans was called upon as an expert witness, and he examined Irving's works for two years, discovering many major factual errors in David Irving's works. Richard Evans came to the conclusion that Irving cannot even be classed as a 'historian', and says "not one sentence" in any of his speeches or written works can be trusted. Richard Evan's "Telling Lies About Hitler" presents a solid case against David Irving that casts serious doubt about every 'historical' text that Irving wrote, and this video presents 3 examples from Evan's brilliant book (this video is not a sponsored video, I genuinely think Evan's book is brilliant and you should get yourself a copy) that really should make you question the opinions of those who still promote Irving's works.
Holocaust deniers may continue to deny that the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question' took place, but in actively distorting the evidence, they undermine their own cause. The term 'distorian' describes their 'writers' better than the term 'historian'.
And, in case it isn't blatantly obvious, I'm NOT a Fascist, NOT a Nazi, NOT a Marxist, and am NOT promoting said evil ideologies. This video is for educational and historical purposes, so that we may learn from the past and prevent it from repeating.
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
- - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Evans, R. “In Defence of History.” Granta Books, Kindle.
Evans, R. "Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial." Verso, 2002.
Irving, D. "Hitler's War:1939-1942." PAPERMAC 1983.
Irving, D. "Hitler's War:1942-1945." PAPERMAC 1983.
Lipstadt, D. "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." Penguin Books, 2016.
Rees, L. "The Holocaust: A New History." Penguin Books, 2017.
Seidel, G. "The Holocaust Denial: Antisemitism, Racism, & the New Right." Beyond the Pale Collective, 1986.
Shermer, M. Grobman, A. "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?" University of California Press, 2009.
Steinbacher, S. "Auschwitz: A History." Penguin Books, 2005.
The FULL list of all my sources: docs.google.co...
- - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
A big thank you to my Patreon, Craig Heinrich, for asking today's question!
Do you want to ask a question? Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos. Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribes...
- - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 • The REAL Reason why Hi...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
How to Ideologically undermine Holocaust Denialism • How to Ideologically u...
It's NOT acceptable to DENY History • It's NOT acceptable to...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
My “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it” video
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
- - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
If you want to know how to undermine National Socialist ideology, see 01:24:54 of my “Hitler’s Socialism” video ruclips.net/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/видео.html
Edit: A lot of comments are being auto-hidden by RUclips. I've just approved a bunch now. I'm NOT the one deleting your comments.
Fact 1: There are ~196 countries in the world.
Fact 2: Holocaust Denialism is only illegal in ~17 countries. Most of these countries are European because Europe never embraced Classical Liberalism (of the John Locke variety: free speech, free markets, free trade etc).
Fact 3: Both Richard Evans and Deborah Lipstadt, as well as many historians (including myself), oppose laws against Holocaust Denialism because they don’t work and just give ammunition to the deniers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial#Prosecutions_and_convictions
IDK. I like to look at everything. I haven't read his books, but I remember looking at his website once years and years ago and I'm going by vague recollection at this point. I was researching the massacre at Babin Yar in Kiev. After looking at a map he posted, I found some photos and some other info that show that something indeed happened there. There was one odd thing I found though: by comparing a topographical map and photos to the official location, there seemed to be a discrepancy of about 500 feet or so. Then again its been a long time and maybe things changed since then. It's not an important detail I just remember this when I was looking the subject up.
Meh. The fact that it isn't illegal in many countries is just because, being the question totally eurocentric, they don't give a f*ck about it.
You're such a shill, Lewis. I knew you would use Evanstein's boneheaded shit as your guide.
TFW you don't know if it was Tik or Tribetube that deleted your comment. I love my white male privilege.
Imagine if you will a historical narrative so true and a powerful interest group so innocent; you could be imprisoned for questioning either of them.
@@franks471 1. The area was subject to extensive remodelling post war including during a 1961 mudslide and its cleanup. 2. I read somewhere that a few years after WWII a raging storm swept thrue the area around Baby-Yar. It caused flash flooding witch washed remains out of the ravine downstream. (i may be misconstruing this with this story i read in NY Times www.nytimes.com/1981/09/27/magazine/babi-yar-s-legacy.html near bottom it speaks of the 1961 floods and aftermath.)
He was considered one of the world’s greatest historians whose research was impeccable until he questioned a certain narrative. Just a €ohen cidence I’m sure.
There are many more areas where he did push it too much and used unreliable and false sources or even invented ones. There is value in his archive studies BUT what part is real is sadly a question very relevant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
😂😂😂
@@chartreusecircle1546 You have much to cry about, American Genzee.
commiepedia is to the left of Lenin. Soros would stop funding wikipedia if they were remotely balanced.
Ask yourself who you’re not allowed to criticize
Kids with cancer?
Xi in China and Kim in Korea?
Ask yourself if his history checks out. That's the topic of the video.
@@Frip36 I did and it turns out he's a fraud and a Hitler apologist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
If you have laws against questioning history then that leads to more questions. It’s very suspect behavior.
Exactly
It is, but European governments see it as necessary to avoid another catastrophe like this one
@@Hadesthief A lot of what is taught is either propaganda or censorship. The victor writes the history. Every war has been shrouded in deception.
@Jamesp wickstrom Nazism started as a populist movement against the establishment
Stop rapping KanyeYe, I’m sorry, I’m stuck in a month ago when Ye was known as baddy bad bad, I guess now he’s ok so hmmmmm I’m sorry but I can’t call you a White Kanye because media murks opinions
“It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” -Norm MacDonald
history is written by the victors
Adam Eget read this guy all the time
Which history book says that?
Are you autistic?
In WW1 there were no good guys
We're so lucky to have the freedom to criticise Irving without the threat of jail. Imagine if questioning his ideas was prohibited by law.
But how many out there would like to see his type of questioning banned by law? Remember, it has to work both ways.
@@Mr.MFuckingYTchangedmyname There are certain areas of historical enquiry that are banned by law. This is unacceptable. For instance, we are free in all countries to have an academic debate about how many millions were killed by the soviets in the holodomor. But academically debating certain other genocides will either destroy your career or send you to jail in many countries. This should raise alarm bells in any rational being.
You mean like questioning the holocaust?
@@PMetheney84 no, the paddy potato famine. Question that and your career is over.
@@LibertyWarrior68 Funny isn't it? You are not allowed to question certain aspects of history. As long as you stay within the permitted borders you are OK.
Irvings more legit than evans
Rubbish, Irving lost his libel action because he could not overcome the evidence Evans had placed against him, in the end it was Irving's own lies that defeated him.
Why are the Jews going to extremes to keep him quiet unless he’s right?
Probably because he inspires ignor ant hateful people. Did that ever cross your mind? You like his Kool Aid?
@@mitchrichards1532 I don't see a lot of ignorance and hate, except when directed at people like Irving to be honest.
Why are you ignorant and hateful?
@@svrsl7819 If you can't see Irving's lies and his agenda in his books and speeches, then its a obvious why you ask such a BS question. Work on it genius... lol
@@mitchrichards1532 So you are hateful and ignorant because most people cannot fathom the reasoning behind an unproven allegation of yours?
That's not a healthy way to go about things.
@@svrsl7819 Interesting opinion, no substance to it, but mildly revealing about how you go about attacking anyone critical of Irving. Is this your MO, asking dishonest questions to try to put people on the defensive? How original, never seen that before. lol
If you want to know who is really in power, find out who you cannot question
Good point
I tried this with the bald kids at the Children's Hospital and now I'm banned. Cancer doesn't exist.
Then it most certsinly isn't the Jews considering the amount of backlash Israel has recieved over their war in Gaza at the time of the writing of this comment.
Who could it be then?
@HiddenHistory45saying that the Jews control the world isn’t criticizing them though, it’s just spreading a stereotype. It’s fine to say that there are people in power who are bad that happen to be Jewish, but trying to attribute these factors to their genetics is wrong
@HiddenHistory45 Irving was the one suing. He was the one trying to silence people. Your conclusion does not fit the facts.
Keep in mind that Churchill's book "The History of the Second War" does not mention the Holocaust.
Neither does De Gaulle's memoirs
Why would it? It was about the war.
@@coffeehousedialogue I think you'll find the "holocaust" happened during WW2
@@mikebrownhill8955 And? It would only have had relevance to the Allies closer to the end as Germany was on the verge of losing and abandoned the camps, so it hardly matters. The only other group fighting that it would matter to is the Poles.
@@mikebrownhill8955 the holocaust was a tragic event for Jews and a blight on German history.
Although hyped up in the media the truth is no one outside that groups probably cared.
It's no as if the Nazis weren't slowly building up to genociding Jews for 20 years, the writing was always on the wall.
People don't really care about the holocaust past it being a political tool.
If RUclips banned all his videos he’s must be talking truth
All his books are incredible. They’re a must-read if you’re interested in WWII.
Exactly 💯
@@matthewmendez2394 The term "Logic" can be used extremely loosely her.
Seriously though, if I was to try and show a Leftist friend of mine, why you shouldn't censor even the worst of people, then this would be my go to video and comment. All that does is radicalize Nazi's and "confirm" their biases. TIK gives example after example as to why Irving is a hack here, and all these folks can do is fall back on the old "Well our Marxist enemies censored it, therefore it's true. Who needs books, sources, data, and an alternative perspective, when I can just resort to this lazy mode of thinking."
@@AVOIDAVOIDVOIDneo nazis as usual are convinced by conspiracy theorists.
can you please explain why if RUclips banned his videos that means they are true
Bro I’m sure you can take 100 small mistakes (like the reason a party officer took off his badge before smashing up a shop) from other historians. This doesn’t reduce Irving’s credibility.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
Why is it that almost all videos regarding Mr. Irving have the comments disabled? What others Historians in the last 20 years have been put in jail for their opinions?
Good point. Shows how much control and power certain sections of our society weild. Want to know who controls us? look to those who we cannot criticise.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
You should definitely read it. You should read EVERYTHING, especially whatever is being censored and told not to read. David is awesome smart guy.
Even if you think the opposite, nobody should be disregarded outright.
And also watch
Europa the last battle 🙋♂️
And EUROPA THE LAST. BATTLE 👀.
Europa the last battl
Yeah he is. At lying
We need a Ministry or Truth to tell us what we are allowed to believe.
And the people who are advocate of that are the authoritarians!
Rather, we need a source or a form of machinery that tells us what is simply false
And let people be free to make Thier beliefs from there.
I believe it should be illegal to allow people to believe in (and act upon) things proven to be false.
Of course, I understand that it is near impossible to enforce such a thing
Because we should always be questioning and learning things.
Still, I find it annoying that Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers exist.
People that take advantage of freedom of speech, it's ironic because freedom of speech was made so people could be able to reason the truth of from varying perspectives
It wasn't made to validate stupid belief systems that have no factual basis
@@potatoesblink3299 Hopefully people like you wil never have unchecked power - unfortunately our Leaders are Sociopaths and Psychopaths...
God created the world in six days
He can also save you from hell and have a personal relationship with him today
He can give you his Holy Spirit to guide and teach and comfort you today
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
We already do and they banned most of his content.
I dare you to debate him instead of talking behind his back.
Irving did write from a viewpoint of the Germans, same as western historians wrote from a western point of view. Irving did go through the history by going back to the original sources which he found in German archives, how many historians did that? Except for the German historians of course… He actually made an archive of Hitlers movements day by day from the start of his career to his death, meaning he upset many western historians as he could actually prove that they were wrong about certain things as he knew where and what Hitler did say by day, something western historians of course did not. His archives were confiscated when he was on trial and he was told these archives were “lost” so he could not get them back. A criminal act by the British state.
What an unfortunate and unforseeable accident, yet I've heard it supposedly was a huge crime that the OKW (allegedly) destroyed documentation during the final days of the war.
An interesting tidbit is that everyone thought Irving was an excellent historian, until he wrote the book on Hitler. After that, pariah.
You've got the timeline wrong, Hitler's War was his most highly-aclaimed work, it was after he was invited to Canada to testify as a WW2 expert to a Canadian court persecuting Ernst Zundel that he started to become a pariah because he looked too deep into holocaust details.
Actually that is not true.
True but once people gauge others they act on new knowledge. I myself had a friend of 7 years. He got into a fight calling a kid the N word. I and his own girl cut him off. People shouldnt have to respect prejudice...instead, if you spit on a race, prepare to get spat on. I truly hope you havent been manipulated by liars and manipulators, but am not some fucktard looking for issues on the internet assuming peoples views
@@colonelsmith7757 Well said Colonel. Poor old Oni has got it wrong I'm pleased to say.
Does using a racial slur, especially when angered make a person racist? No it does not. I served in a unit made up of 15 different ethnicities and I've hear them all, been called them all. But I know that none of those guys are racist, if they were I wouldn't be here today.
I've read that Irving was highly respected and revered by his academic peers as an historian until he started writing on the Holocaust.? Is this true.?
More or less
He sold more books than every other historian combined from the 1960s to the 1980s
Yes ! It is true. This is notorious and easy to verify, I encourage to ! He was successful, and had he never touched what others want to hide, he would be rich and very comfortable in his life. Not the reverse
From what I have read, it appears Irving could do no wrong with his books, was teh golden boy of his publishers, .....until....he published Hitler's War. And the lack of any mention in his book that Hitler knew of or issued orders re the systematic slaughter of the jews, seems to have brought on the incessant attacks up on him ever since.
@@spockofdune8657more like lied about the topic he's talking about.
Since most of his stuff has been deleted by RUclips and also the videos of the sceptics have been deleted. How can we judge for ourselves.
Spot on!
You could try reading books ...
All of the deleting just proves their point of view correct, though. If they were wrong, or just talking nonsense, RUclips wouldn't care. Nobody would. But because they were getting at an uncomfortable truth, they had to be removed.
@@auschwitzwelcomecommittee3593 Just like Irving trying to silence Lipstadt. I wonder which uncomfortable truths he was trying to suppress?
@@bolivar2153 Nice try, but libel doesn't qualify as free speech.
The only historical event that your not allowed to debate, investigate or deny.
Except in the vast majority of countries
You can absolutely investigate it. But i suspect you belong to those people who've reached a conclusion in their head long ago and now only seek to validate it - that's not how historical research works, that's just wishful thinking. But you much rather claim such BS instand of ACTUALLY doing any work at all or do some thinking of your own.
@@YourNemesis23I have a question. A sincere one. Why is it that any other historical event can be denied in essentially every country on the planet. But 15 european nations have a law specific to one even criminalising its denial
@@sheep5514Wait countries that were affected by holocaust dont like when you deny holocaust but those who did not experience it dont care about it ?
WORLD CONSPIRACY
I wonder why...
How can you be jailed for questioning something 🤔
Probably because you’re shaking a multi - billion industry at its core
Whose indictment or judgement said they were found guilty of questioning something?
@@ginskimpivot753 Ursula Haverbeck, a 91 year old German woman who has been in and out of jail for a while now for holocaust denial.
@@aquat715
?!
She fell foul of German statute law. She wasn't indicted for _'questioning something,'_ as there is no law against that particular activity.
@@ginskimpivot753 "Germany's jailed "Nazi grandma" Ursula Haverbeck, 89, on Friday lost a challenge before the country's highest court, which reaffirmed that constitutional free speech guarantees do not cover Holocaust denial."
-
"German law makes it illegal to deny the genocide committed by Adolf Hitler's regime, which in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in occupied Poland alone claimed some 1.1 million lives, mostly of European Jews.
Holocaust denial and other forms of incitement to hatred against segments of the population carry up to five years in prison, while the use of Nazi symbols such as swastikas is also banned.
The Constitutional Court ruled that "punishment for denying the National Socialist genocide is fundamentally compatible with Article 5 (1) of the Basic Law," which guarantees freedom of speech."
This was on a German news site in 2018 I found it through a simple Google search
Two things that always go together:
1. Thing with strong evidence.
2. Things you can never ever question/investigate, because it's illegal to.
Of course.
David Irving was at one time considered the best in the field of WW2 history. If you want to get a taste for his work without the controversy then read his early works, particularly the Dresden book. Once you get an idea of his style and the way he interprets the archives and historical records then you can read his later works with a much better understanding of his writings. Irving was one of the first westerners to have access to the Soviet archives which I believe is one reason why they stand out. Irving's books are truly different than anything else ever written on the subject and as a person who has read more than 100 books on WW2 I would consider them essential to understanding that whole part of history.
Why is someone's career completely destroyed when they quote something negative about Jews?
@@FelyspG1999 Yea, society goes into full Def Con 5 mode if you even become a tad critical of Israeli policies and people go absolutely nuts when someone denies the Holocaust. Seriously? Let them deny whatever they like. It's a bit odd that this one topic can never be criticized but you hear nary a mention of Holodomor.
@@Del-Canada It is interesting and curious how they play the card up their sleeve to anyone who criticizes them, almost automatically they call them nazy, or racist, to try to obfuscate the criticism and make people side with them for fear of being called racist too.. .
Irving is different and stands out from other historians. He uses the very best primary sources and archives for all his works. He is the best in this subject, there are no comparisons!
He literally says up to 250,000 died in dresden, that's moronic.
So the guy spent two years investigating Irving's claims and that's the best he could come up with ? In the first instance a different interpretation of the policeman's hearsay evidence is plausible . Who knows what was in Hitlers mind . For me its very possible ( certainly back then ) he did not want the party to be tarnished by thuggish criminal behavior and the idea that he was actually annoyed that the person he chucked out of the party did not proudly wear his party badge whilst engaging in a criminal act is absurd .
Second Jews of Rome incident . The idea that because Hitler knew there were " reprisal killings " he must have known there was a policy of mass killing is a stretch . If such a policy really was in place why on earth were the " troublesome Jews of Rome " even being discussed when as jews they should have been automatically marked for murder .
Third example - merely mistakes about numbers and different definitions . Being burnt down is clearly destroyed wheres being looted and smashed up not so much . I have to say im frankly more of the opinion that Mr Irving has merit than before if these really are his worst " transgressions "
At what point was it stated that it was the best he could come up with ?
@@gunnerlangy it wasn't but if there was worse surely they would have quoted it ? Do you know anything further ?
It is hard to maintain the suggestion that Richard J. Evans is generally unbiased with regard to this subject. During the Irving versus Penguin Books libel case, Evans responded to Irving:
"It is because you want to interpret euphemisms as being literal, and that is what the whole problem is. Every time there is an euphemism, Mr. Irving ... or a camouflage piece of statement or language about Madagascar, you want to treat it as the literal truth, because it serves your purpose of trying to exculpate Hitler. That is part of ... the way you manipulate and distort the documents."
Evans took the Holocaust narrative for granted, whereas Irving did not. A truly unbiased historian does not take any narrative for granted, but seeks evidence that exceeds hear-say and the circular logic of accepting statements that are based on equally unproven assumptions. Evans seems to embrace the "euphemism" theory about Nazi rule during WWII. Whenever the narrative gets stuck in the process, due to blatant lack of actual evidence, the argument goes that the Nazis applied "euphemisms in order to hide their actual intentions".
Of course, we are supposed to ignore the huge logical fallacy that ensues this assumption.
Well, fuck, those camps were there and they weren't conducting meditation classes...
What utter rot and poppycock. All these pathetic resorts to ‘ euphemisms ‘ and sundry hints at underhanded semantic trickery and subterfuge. Nazis ( that is what you are : be frank and sincere, stop stooping and cowering behind scarcely believable wafer- thin masks as...”
revisionists “, and other such subterfuge. Be honest and upfront and brave enough, for once, to describe yourselves as you precisely are....Nazis ! ),...and sincerely declare your admiration of the shootings of babies by the einsatzgruppen, and cease your laughable attempts to dismiss evidence of gas chambers. Your are acting precisely as the cowardly failed fowler, Himmler, allowed to be put down ON AUDIO RECORDING that these revolting crimes could NEVER be admitted to. Neo-Nazis of today, your useless denialiasm woluld certainly be lauded by the exemplary Aryan Heinrich if he were ( thankfully not ) be here to witness them today.
@@CallanElliott The camps themselves never were disputed in the first place. If that is your response, then first try to familiarise yourself with the subject, before you come up with useless replies. Are you really implying that we "deniers" are too stupid to know at least the basics about WWII? This subject has been discussed since decades and goes into great lengths to scrutinise all kinds of details. Simply assuming that a casual reference to "the camps" suffices to silence "deniers" is more than naive.
@@Guido_XL I was being sarcastic. So what parts exactly do you deny about the Holocaust?
this is possibly the crux of the whole issue
if the "euphemisms" were about what we now consider to be 'obviously' genocidal aims, where is the decoder key for the euphemisms? iow, if the meaning 'behind' the euphemisms was so obvious to everyone in the communication loop, what documentation is there of such a decoded platform?
alternatively, if the alleged 'euphemisms' were actually just face-value statements among Nazi leaders, where is the documentary basis for a genocidal plan on their part?
basically, if the codewords were effective to dupe underlings, then we should be able to document uncoded communiques that lay out the whole diabolical scheme; yet, all we have as evidence of such a scheme is a series of allegedly coded statements that never fit the bill
I would be more impressed if you had a face to face interview with Irving, giving him the opportunity to respond to your accusations. Anyone can cherry pick sources to discredit another, maybe in an attempt to make themselves appear superior.
Taylor, what a disingenuous comment. Why would a grown man care about appearing "superior" by talking about what another man said? And irving did give his own account of things, that's why his books are quoted repeatedly in this video. There is no cherry picking, he has the entire book. Also, saying he should have interviewed him otherwise it's worthless is a pitiful tactic that I only see done when no other argumentation can be made. As a former nazi, this is just not a good comment.
@@AR15andGOD I suggest you find another word rather than disingenuous, because my initial comment was sincere. I can point you in the right direction of a good dictionary if you are struggling with your grammar.
funny
@@AR15andGOD Wanting someone to talk to the actual person who wrote those books to have a 2 way discussion about points of disagreement is a "pitiful tactic"? OK Jesus. Just remember, as Hemingway said, "There is no nobility about being superior to your fellow man, true nobility comes from being superior to your former self".
@@BRTaylorno, you original comment does appear disingenuous. Like half these brain dead comments you just say “blah blah cherry picked” yk you gotta actually provide something of substance. You the type of guy that just wants to be oppressed 😂
I'm a historian and i have met irving as well. He was speaking (on a non controversial subject) in a hotel close to where i lived and it was reported on in the news, i thought why not go there, see what all the fuss is about and ask the man some questions. Bomb threats and violent activists made the hotel cancel the event at the last minute. Most of the people wanting to attend were already gone and i found a old ostracized tired man who clearly was radicalized because of this isolation, censorship and persecution. I'm a firm believer in free speech and debate as the best way to combat bad ideas. The 'monster' that irving has become is largely to blame on how our soceity has treated mr irving. Like christopher hitchens said Irving is a great historian who wrote better books (despite some bad conclusions that are suspicious) on hitler and wwii than most historians that mosty copy paste from other historians. For those who doubt how to handle cases like irving watch the great speech on RUclips by Christopher Hitchens on free speech.
Yup. The same way I was radicalized as a teen and got into the whole nazi thing. Being open, honest, and most importantly kind to others is the best way to fight nazism and authoritarian ideologies.
@@AR15andGOD Couldn't agree more! Thanks for sharing your valuable experience.
European politicians use men like him as a scapegoat
Yep tik just reports from other historian's
Ernst Zundel suffered an even worse fate. Really makes you think.
“He must have known”, “he must have known” said evans. That isn’t evidence but presumption. How ludicrous.
Probability that Hitler who micro managed everything just overlooked millions of deaths and the massive infrastructure set up to acheive those deaths is zero.
I agree with your assessment. 'He must have known' is the argument of a person who has no proof, no evidence and saying the populist view.
@@keithad6485 one side of the argument is full of "must've", "should've" and "ought to" as the foundation for some less than believable, shocking assertions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
Ludicrous and very feminine.
Regarding the first example with Hitler kicking a guy out of the party after he smashed up a deli without his party badge on, Irving's interpretation is much more plausible than that of Evans. All Hitler said was that the removal of the badge was in effect an act of resigning from the party. This does NOT imply that Hitler would have been happy to have his guys smashing up shops WITH their badges on.
Evans: "Had the brownshirts kept their badges on, Hitler's words indicated that he might well have had no objection to their action."
What tf is this "might well have had no objection"??? That's not a real argument.
That all said, Irving does spin the whole thing a little strangely as Hitler nobly protecting Jews. He could also merely be acting out of practical considerations. It's not hard to understand why a party leader wouldn't want party members running around and smashing up stores like common thugs. It's not a good look.
@@dr.corneliusq.cadbury6984 Hitler literally gave the order to stop all hostile actions against Jews, this order was relayed to every single SA and police HQ across the entire Reich on the same night of the outrages, it was signed for and sent by Rudolf Hess himself, Hitler's second in command. It wasn't Hitler who instigated these actions, it was Goebbels, who exploited the murder of a German diplomat in Paris by a Jew.
that is an argument, we can't fully know what hitler might've done, but the fact is that we have the consequance for the opposite action, might show that there would of probably been an opposite response for the opposite action
That whole disingenuous opening to this video sets up the narrator as a liar far beyond what he is trying to defame Irving with. Even supposing he had any sort of real point, his subsequent dismissal of "every word" of Irving's, points to a lack of rational thinking and a pathetically transparent agenda.
@@philiplavere For me if after two years those three examples are the best he could come up with Irving must be pretty accurate 99 % of the time !
the truth is Irving had access to files and documents that other historians did not both Roper and Hastings used his research but were too cowardly to admit it
That's accurate, Trevor Hugh Roper definitely used David's work.
So we just so happened to have access to super secret files that no one else has? Why is that? Who gave it to him? He just happened to find it or?
Irving also walked the areas where these historic events took place, I suspect there is a lot of professional jealousy of Irving from these so called 'academic' historians. To me academic means - Desk bound, quotes the works of other historians and largely, do not get out of their office to walk the ground where event occurred and reluctant to visit places such as the PRO to conduct their own research. and very likely never travel to places such as Bundes Arkiv and similar places to read original docs for themselves. Nor ever took the trouble to learn and speak fluent German to better understand original documents.
I have no respect for any historian who seeks to denigrate others without also, at the same time, showing evidence of their spurious claims against the person they are attacking. Evans appears to be once such denigrator and who has the appearance of being jealous of Irving's capacity for seeking out original documents, speaking with people with first hand personal knowledge of historical events, seeking out contemporary letters home to family, war time diaries, etc etc. And appears to be jealous of Irving's fame (but not his debatable infamy). Did Evans ever get his hands dirty with physical labour like Irving did when he went to work in a German steel mill in the 1960s?
@@keithad6485 The guy's respect went down after he questioned if Hitler even knew the Holocaust took place. The main problem with that is you can't just have that infrastructure appear and NOT know about it, especially if his high command knew. There is also the fact that Nazi propaganda made it very clear that the Jew was to be seen as a threat. Eventually that evolved to denying the Holocaust even happened at all.
@@silverstar8868 Not secret at all IF you are willing to do the footwork!
Would you interview Irving himself about these points in depth? He is pretty responsive by email and I think very willing to speak to any audience.
yes I emailed David Irving about "Hitler's food tasters"...of course he said it was not factual...
Lol you’re very obviously just trying to get Irving exposed to a larger audience. In person debates are a terrible way to figure anything out philosophically.
@@HW-sw5gb - You seem very obvious in trying to silence Irving, see what I did there?
@@JUAN_OLIVIER That’s literally exactly what I’m trying to do. I wish it worked even better. There’s a reason there’d be huge outrage if any respected TV show brought Richard Spencer on. An inherent part to the freedom of speech is the right to oppose ideas you think are stupid and harmful. That includes imposing social consequences for holding those ideas and asking others to do the same and not accept those who do.
I’d do the same for any flat earther or climate change denier or anti-vaxxer or a cult member. Irving deserve to be disrespected and have his stupidity exposed to as little people as possible. Otherwise people who are in vulnerable positions in their lives might not recognize it for the obvious dumbness that it is and buy into it (see Scientology or Heaven’s Gate for another example of this). Anyone denying the Holocaust deserves the same respect as someone at an astrophysicist convention arguing a turtle is holding up the Earth.
@@HW-sw5gb and you're very obviously trying to keep him hidden because he's put half the world's WW2 academic historians to shame.
Apparently Irving was a well renowned historian one of the most successful in his prime. To be fair it is odd that he gets the boot when he starts questioning shit
He got the boot when he was caught actively and consistently lying abour the evidence.
@@mookie2637 that doesn’t make sense at all. None of his work was ever inaccurate until he started speaking on the big dawgs 🇮🇱
@@Boomy2nicce Sorry, I don't engage with antisemitic morons who obviously haven't watched what they are commenting on.
Stop buying into this nazi shit ur black brodie
Why do Jewish organizations care what I read? I'm not a Jew.
Basically you are saying trust Richard Evans not David Irving...
i mean, evans legit went to court where everything he's said stood up to scrutiny, while david irvings does not.
we can't ignore everything that irving has done, but he's not a historian as what he writes too often spits in the mouth of the historical method
@Commander Rockwell XII David Irving and the Boche Agency for Hunland
@Pep Believe it or not, I am watching Europa the Last Battle (on Bitchute) right now. I usually say stuff like that as a pisstake when people don't make an argument.
@@BigSock099 Because historical fact is determined in court.
@@grafzeppelin4069 it was Irv and his secretary vs a 10m budget of top briefs/ reseaarchers and paid witn essses..also the verdit was decided by one man who was obviously picked for the job.
”No praise can be too high for [Mr. Irving’s] indefatigable scholarly industry. He has sought and found scores of new sources, including many private diaries. He has also tested hitherto accepted documents and discarded many of them as forgeries. His portrait of Hitler is thus, he claims, firmly based on solid primary evidence…An exact and scrupulous historian.”- Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre), Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford.
This is not a criticism of your comment, this is a minor point, but Trevor-Roper was actually Lord (Baron?) Dacre of Glanton, this was to distinguish from another, unrelated, Lord Dacre.
Hugh Trevor-Roper pops up in actual events of history which is lesser known -
He actually worked with traitor Kim Philby in British SIS during the War. But never suspected at the time that Philby was betraying and continued to betray the country of his birth (England) to the Soviets. Source (from memory) H.A.R. 'Kim' Philby, 'My Silent War'. 1967.
Following the War (late 1945) Trevor Roper was appointed to conduct Operation Nursery in Germany to investigate the fate of Adolf Hitler, apparently a British Government operation to rebut persistent claims by the Soviet propaganda newspaper Isvestia that the Brits were hiding the very much alive Hitler (according to Isvestia) in a schloss in West Germany.
Later, in the early 1980s, during the fake Hitler Diary fiasco, he publicly stated the Hitler diaries were genuine; before Irving - in spectacular fashion - revealed at a German media event, that the diaries were fake. To be fair to Trevor-Roper, it appears he was rushed into deciding and declaring the diaries were genuine. Source - Robert Harris 'Selling Hitler' a book published in the 1980s.
@@keithad6485 I remember that. One of the things that tipped off Mr. Irving was that the diaries had artificial leather covers. He knw that Hitler would have only bought and used books with fine paper and genuine leather.
@@deepcosmiclove Another tip off was Irving had discovered a 'diary' entry could not have been known by Hitler at the date it was written. Robert Harris's book is well worth reading. Even quotes Rupert Murdoch who told his news paper men to publish the diaries anyway (after they were discovered to be fake), 'are in the entertainment business' (not the news business).
It’s interesting that Irving was considered a respected writer/historian, backed by respected publishing houses like St Martin’s Press, until he started talking about the Holocaust. Most of his writings on the war itself are based on primary evidence, plenty of which he himself uncovered, or memoirs. He doesn’t cite other books, which irritates the history club. Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction, said that UNFORTUNATELY, there was still no better source on the rise and fall of the German Air Force than Irving’s book. He also wrote that the Nazi top brass was in fact not pleased with Kristallnacht because of the insurance payments and foreign exchange that would be lost to replace the broken glass with imports.
Hitler's War: “The best study we have of the German side of the Second World War”-Prof. Gordon Craig, Stanford University.
You failed to mention that in his veridict, the judge rejected evans most negative assessment of irving and accepted the more positive view of john keegan. Even though irving lost the libel case, the judge commended his "unparalled" knowledge of nazi germany and ww2.
He also said "The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."
@@bolivar2153 yes it's true, irving lost the case and has many flaws. Still, you shouldn't base your opinion of him solely on evans own view. Other reputable historians have praised irvings books. It's not a black and white issue.
joao bruno Yes, some historians have praised aspects of Irving’s work, as Irving is so fond of quoting in his ‘publisher’s blurb’. However, Irving also fails to quote the remainder of those same historians views with respect to his manipulations and his blatantly untrue claims. Again, Irving picks and chooses what he wants to use, altering or omitting anything that doesn’t suit his agenda.
@@bolivar2153 I guess that could be applied to many other historians. In particular evans, who is not unbiased. He was in fact payed handsomely to right a negative report on irving. Anyone who is interested in this issue should do their own research and maybe read irvings books and judge for themselves. Not base their opinion on another single biased historian.
@@joaobruno9464 I don't base my opinions of Irving on a "single biased historian".
Evan's was employed by the defence to investigate Irving's books and to find inconsistencies. He spent two years doing this, with great thoroughness. (Had Irving done this in the first place, this discussion would not be taking place). Does this automatically give him bias? No, it doesn't. He did the job he was employed to do as an historian. His research was thorough and has since been published for all to read and to critique. If you have found flaws in his work, please enlighten us.
I do recommend reading Lying about Hitler written by Richard Evans. It is a work of pettiness and spite the like of which I have never before encountered from a "professor". That he was knighted shortly afterwards is a sad reflection on our society, and an indication of where the power lies. It brings me shame as a graduate of Cambridge that he held a chair there.
@Lawofimprobability Irving's method of citation is not academic, but he did draw attention to the more controversial of his claims in the preface to his book ("Hitler's War"), thus inviting criticism. That at least was responsible of him.
exactly. Well said
@@StephenCowley001If the academic way is just copy-pasting stuff from a bunch of other books in the library and then piecing together paragraphs to "create" a "new" book then I much prefer Irving's way of directly citing original documents from actual archives and not charlatans.
Same with Sir Antony Beevor. I bought one of his history books to get a different point of view to Irving's book on the same subject, Whereas Irving had cited the original documents he relied on, Beevor had not cited one source and expected us to believe his claims on faith. To me it was not the book of a genuine historian.
@@colonelsmith7757but he literally fucking lied about what many of those primary sources said so he could fit his narrative.
Everything Evans said can be completely reversed back on him. Irving was 100% fluent in German and spoke with high ranking members of the 3rd Reich in their own native tongue. I remember Irving once held out his hand and said "This hand has shook hands with more people that shook Hitler's than any other person alive today" and I knew all these other historians are just pretenders and he was the real deal. Israeli secret service once broke into Irving's apartment and destroyed all of his research, at the time Irving was writing the most fastidious biography of Adolf Hitler's life during the war years, he had research and accounts that were one-off's and verbal testaments by men that had died, once destroyed they were lost forever and the Israelis made sure they would be completely lost to the west.
We simply cannot ignore everything that Irvine wrote,Irvine went to Germany and lived among the Germans of that era and had access to many people and things that others did not. Lot's of books on the 2nd WW are simply a rehash of other peoples work but not Irvine,having said this,this is no excuse for blindly following every word that he says!
and? wow, he talked to a bunch of supposed "high ranking members" (i'm sure you can source that btw), so that means all he wrote is 100% true. because the Nazi's totally don't have a reason to lie or try and make themselves look less evil then what they actually were. and it totally discredits the work of thousands of historians who say differently then Irving who, unlike him, didn't have to make their sources up.
"Israeli secret service once broke into Irving's apartment and destroyed all of his research"
lmao, sure and they also stole his lunch money, peed in his bed and got the tooth fairy to give him a flat tire. not only do you not have any actual proof that such an outlandish claim ever happened, you don't have the common sense of understanding how mind-bogglingly stupid it makes your claims look. this makes "the dog ate my homework" excuse sound believable
I remember that crime, when they came in and took his 40 000 notes. When they had to give him back his things, the authorities said that it just got accidentally burned down in storage. How can you accidentally burn down 40 000 things and just those in storage
Of course they did. 😂
This is wild. Do you have a link regarding that story about his notes being stolen? I can’t find anything online about it.
So speculations by Richard Evans, an establishment British historian is the final word on events that took place in Germany?
Speculations? No, that's you trying to distort what happened when Dr. Evans examined Irving's work against his source material and was able to demonstrate when and where he omitted fact, took liberties, and fabricated lies to create a false narrative. That's not speculation, that's fact. He proved it in a public court and Irving was caught red handed.
@@mitchrichards1532Historians make mistakes here and there. You acting as if DI is a coordinated liar shows your bias
@@KansasHempMan He was caught distorting the historical record by misusing his source material. He wrote lies and false narratives, so what do you call him?
@@mitchrichards1532 Stop acting like he did that on purpose. Governments don't censor people who tell the truth. Governments censor inconvenient truths.
@@KansasHempMan Ya ok, and anytime something is "censored" it becomes gospel truth to certain people just because of that. Explain that little fact of nutter psychology? It's like: Oh "they" tried to suppress the info??? Then that proves it MUST BE TRUE!!!
lol, explain that complete lack of critical or even rational thought by a segment of the population.
I rather believe David Irving than all these mumbo jambo historians that follow the "winners" narative.
Everyone's a well renowned historian until they tackle the wrong topic.
Why do u recreate accounts to type different comments with the same point?
Or until they just make stuff up and attempt to mislead people about history.
@@terrorbird8957 Why is someone's career completely destroyed when they quote something negative about Jews?
@@FelyspG1999 Have you actually read Richards book?
@iver mektin Well Said! Agreed!
I read the book Hitlers war and although i found it interesting i remember that Irving struck me as rather un-objective and with pro-German symphaties. Still Irving being imprisoned for Holocaust denial is rather absurd if you ask me.
Where did he get imprisoned for it? Technically speaking, it is not illegal to deny the Holocaust in the UK, despite current hate speech laws.
@@Mitch93 He got locked up in Austria
@@NathanMulder Ah, ok that makes more sense now.
@@NathanMulder For years. In the 50's? No, 2005.
@@Mitch93 In Austria.
Dude lol. David Irving would run circles around you.
There's more integrity in Irving's work on Nazi Germany than most of the authoritative sources on the topic. It's unfortunate that history has become another platform for bias and political agenda but that's what sets Irving apart. The facts he presents are not always pleasant, but he presents all of them whether they conflict each other or they conflict with traditional belief is not his concern, he's a historian.
The reputation he's gained reveals more the deplorable state in which mainstream history finds itself, than inaccuracies in his work.
Well said! No Historian in recent memory has ever written with such detail from primary sources with the sole purpose to educate the masses. To dismiss his entire lifetime work motivated by political biasness all based on a few trivial examples is both malicious and scandalous.
upvote this
Well stated
TIK is not mainstream either. He regularly goes after commies and other socialists.
Richard Evans was given several million dollars by film director Spielberg and others which enabled him to hire two full-time researchers for two years. They found about twenty suspected errors in Irving's writing. The judge based his judgement mainly on three of these. In several decades of intense work that is not many. I have read Irving's works and some of Richard Evans's, and I have seen them both expounding on WWII history. In my opinion Irving is more intelligent than Evans, speaks far better German and has done massively more original research on the period. He is indisputably the greatest historian of the period, to the extent that if one were to give points out of 10, giving him 9 would mean that no other historian of the period could rate above 7, and Evans only 4. His reputation is up against the greatest obstacle of power that exists, but history itself will one day laud him as the genius he is.
Troll or neo-nazi?
@@haydenchristensen8607 or Idiot...so probably a neo nazi
@LawofimprobabilityYou are correct that Irving was found guilty of fabricating history on a technicality , you are inncorrect to assume that this proves that much of his work is unreliable, indeed the fact that after three years of trawling through Irving's work this was all that Evans could come up with is a great vindication of Irving's work.
@Lawofimprobability The biggest evil or insult given to us Jews was the introduction of laws to prevent investigation into the Holocaust. Its history is set in stone with no allowance for investigation for to refute the official line/narrative regarding death toll will see you jailed for 7 years whereas to investigate and conclude a larger figure will see you lauded as a good person, it is simply preposterous to have a law like this and as I say the biggest insult to all those who suffered the Holocaust. He who holds the TRUTH censors and fears no one ! " .
@Lawofimprobability The usual smoke and mirrors nonsense, debate on numbers should be thrashed out in open debate by historians each producing their evidence but of course that is prohibited. "only the simplest disscussed here".. rubbush, Evans clutched at straws to make a case against the integrity of Irving's work that is why it too him and his assistants THREE YEARS, if Irving's work was not largly beyond question and anything like what you suggest it woukd have taken them three weeks.
Read some of Irving's books you might learn something.
"The Truth is so fragile, It needs a bodyguard of lies to protect It."
-Winston Churchill
Irving presented another viewpoint and was immediately attacked by the "Bodyguard of Lies."
Weirdly enough, the exact same thing happened with half a dozen historians who questioned the Borg narrative surrounding the first war.
Uh no, he tried to paint Hitler as not being anti-semitic and rightfully got torn apart for it. He also tried to sue the woman who called him out as being a liar so whos the one trying to surpress free speech?
Hey, how about just call yourself a Holocaust denier instead of trying to hide yourself as reasonable.
@ravenkahne8484 LOL, he was the one attacking people for calling him out.
Lidst case wouldn't have happened if he didn't decide to sue her. Guess what? Freedom of speech also means Lidst can call him a holocaust denier. I guess Irving must have a whole secret service to protect his truth considering he had to sue people to keep it safe
If RUclips banned him then I trust him.
Same as Colin Flaherty, God rest his soul
14:12
Wait...so Dresden wasn't firebombed ? I'll be damned, learn something new everyday.
Oh no. Berlin women were not raped to death by the Bolsheviks either. Irving is a great man who has suffered more than most to get the truth to the blinkered masses.
@Loud Italian Berlin
@aard apel You just put them in the same sentence.
@@kennyshortcake999 Russian women also weren't raped and forced into brothels, slavs weren't starved to death and put in concentration camps, Ukrainians did not have all of the food they produced confiscated, Soviet POW's weren't thrown into concentration camp without any fuel to keep themselves warm or any food. And the jews weren't genocided.
@@kennyshortcake999 Of course they weren't.
How can we trust channels that haven't been silenced and kicked off toob?
Why don’t you read Irving’s books and decide for yourself?
no no, that's dangerous and very close to thought crime.
The ministry of truth has made great efforts to educate the ignorant zombie masses on the actual, factual, really for real truth.
"The past does not exist in the present. Therefore history is what happens in the mind of the historian when he views an artifact of the past" J. Mason historian extraordinaire.
Who is J. Mason?
@@Luke_D_Brown_2000 Some guy the OP met in a bar.
Is that a re-wording of O'brien?
Historians don’t write about history (unless they meet individuals themselves and are able to interview them). Historians write about or interpret the accounts of history!
That is an important fact when we consider history!
"The job of the historian is to find out what happened and why."
-David Irving
You concentrate on Irving's Hitler's War. I've read Irving's Insurrection Budapest and Rommel: The Trail Of The Fox. Are you suggesting that those books are also corrupted? Because they seemed pretty good to me. The Trail Of the Fox was on the recommended reading list at West Point.
Also war of Generals.
His book on the luftwaffe and Erhard Milch is also excellent
you are doing great until you talk about or question Isreal :) not a rocket science
His book on the v2 program is still the very best on the subject. He also is the one who translated alot the German generals memoirs into English. Which 'court historians' use.
Strawman argument - just because Irving may be faithful to the truth on certain subjects, the *fact* that he has been shown to intentionally misrepresent the truth on other topics means that his work should be viewed with distrust by default, especially regarding the Holocaust.
I have over the years bought several books by David Irving but the only one I have ever read significant chunks of is 1956 Uprising. I am in no position to judge to what degree he is right or wrong in what he says. But this is a historical event, the narrative of which has developed significantly over the years. For example I believe it is no coincidence that the monument to Nagy in Budapest was recently moved to a slightly less prominent location, even if the official explanation offered denied this to be the case. Recent books by Hungarian historians have sought to downplay Nagy's role with the shift of interest moving towards Mindszenty. And I don't believe the last word has yet been spoken on this matter, as political opportunism definitely plays a part here. I think every history book should also to some extent be taken in the spirit of the time in which it was written, and Irving wrote this book at a time that it was still forbidden to speak about these events in the East whereas the West, and definitely the English speaking world, had until then AFAIK not produced a comparably detailed study. As such he was breaking new ground. Also, writing for English-speaking readers (the book has AFAIK never been translated into Hungarian, and if it has, it is not well known in Hungary, most people there have never heard of Irving) he was not trying to pick sides in Hungary's internal political struggle (which anyway, was nonexistent at the time he wrote it). As such he might actually be more objective than some of the recent Hungarian historians in my opinion.
But moving back to the topic of WW2, I have always felt that Irving's great contribution was that by being openly right-wing, he was able to gain access to people in Hitler's inner circle and make them speak about what they remembered. In the period that these people were still alive, and especially in Germany but to a lesser extent also in Austria, there was a veil of shame over the events of Third Reich and the people who were involved did not speak freely about it, both out of shame and for fear of accusations. I know this from my own experience as I knew several such people during my time in Germany and although I was genuinely interested and not seeking to shame or accuse them of anything, this was a topic that was absolutely impossible to approach. So I do think a lot of kudos does go to Irving for making them talk.
Are you familiar with Yehuda Bauer's findings that the death plaques in front of Auschwitz were in error and had to be destroyed and new ones cut to display the more correct numbers?
David Irving was the most credible historian on World War II, hailed by all the mainstream newspapers as the urmost authority on the subject until his unparalleled research dug up an opinion that the establishment didn't want in the public sphere. Then they turned on him and discredited him as a hateful man. That fact should wake up all, but alas.. people are so driven by what the majority think.
@@andrewdavies3584 Bit like Professor David Nutt - Hired and trusted as a government drugs policy advisor, came out saying cannabis and MDMA are less harmful than tobacco ad alcohol and all drugs should be decriminalized and the money put into education and treatment.
They sacked him!
Evidence based research, the establishment will not tolerate it unless they can monopolize the knowledge.
@@andrewdavies3584 Exactly
No historian in recent memory has written such detailed account of events to educate the world!
Whilst everyone is patting themselves on the back saying to themselves that they've made statements I cannot deal with, can i just inform you that seven of my responses have been removed from this. Commenting about contraversial matters on youtube has became utterly pointless. Welcome to the Brave New World.
There are ways to get around RUclips's censorship...
Anyone can say that.
@varalderfreyr8438 or lying
That may have been RUclips which has removed your comments.
When it comes to Iriving and his enemies I've noticed what they do is find "trivial" (not to say unimportant) examples to undermine him and make him look suspect. They don't do this to other historians, such as Stephen Ambrose - in his book key people are said to have died during the war when they in fact went on to live on to old age. It shows that mistakes do happen and if you really want to make someone look unreliable you can. I think what Evans has done here is taken a few small examples to try and undermine Irving's larger argument without actually finding something substantial enough to utterly demolish the argument. In a court of law it's hard to defend yourself if some of your work does have mistakes in it (inevitably all historians make mistakes), a jury will look at that and say "if he's screwed up there then we can't trust anything else he says." Doesn't mean Irving shouldn't have properly vetted himself to give the best defence possible he messed up.
Exactly! Every Historian has made some mistakes in his works. Just by digging up a few trivial examples here and there and (based entirely on that) to undermine his entire lifetime work clearly exposes their dishonest and malicious intent!
absolutely agree Evans latched on to the most trivial nonsense to use as argument which shows the quality of the man.
Irving completely fabricating a story to support his agenda (6:30) isn't "trivial" - goes to his credibility and character and means that everything he writes, especially wrt to the Holocaust, needs to be treated with scepticism.
I don't see how Evan's interpretations have more credibility than Irving's. Both are reading into the source more information than is actually there. What's more incredible is how you present this stuff like as if it is somehow conclusive. I guess it goes to show that history is far more imprecise and unknown compared to the confidence with which historians talk about it.
Evan did not twist history, when testimony and true information is available from a credible source you take them as they are you DO NOT modify them to fir your ideology!! History is an account of events NOT an opinion!!
@@drscopeify Did you just say, "History is an account of events NOT an opinion!!" Your statement is foolish and needed correcting. LOL OK, Whose History? Every country has it's own "historical" account of how events took place. And, every one of them is constructed to fit their own narrative. For every History book, there is another History book that tells a different story. As you grow older, you'll learn these things.
Evans did not lie or distort the information in the documents.
Yup. Would rather look at the primary source itself than read books. This is why I laugh at those who read Irving or any historian ever at face value. Unfortunately even the "free thinkers" in this comment section does the same as many people.
@@Brslldthe point is primary sources can be incredibly unreliable and biased
The TRUTH FEARS NO INVESTIGATION
Why would they gas them 😂 if you have gun
THE TRUTH FEARS INDIGESTION
The creep cannot be trusted
@Let's Make the Holocaust Great Again! Well if you had some knowledge about Nazi archives related to Einsatzgruppen, you would have seen SS reports related to soldiers being mentally affected from shooting child, women or elders nearly every day on Eastern fronts. And so why they bringed T4 staff leading to gas van first, then the AR camps in Poland.
One should maybe know a bit more about the subject he's talking before saying it has no sense ...
@Let's Make the Holocaust Great Again! but he never claimed they were "too nice, sensitive and too affected to shoot them". Also, not every person is the same. One should accuse someone only for what they have/have not done.
@Let's Make the Holocaust Great Again! it's possible. Because in the beginning they may be wanting them to work as cheap labor (slaves) making weapons (in Poland etc.), and after some point (maybe 1943) they noticed that the cost of feeding them was in fact bigger than the products they gained by having them produce them.
As for cruelty, don't be surprised. I live in Greece, and whole villages of innocent people, whole families were burned alive (you read correctly, burned alive) in their houses on purpose, just because there was a suspicion that someone from the village had sabotaged, or killed a German soldier. There are pictures of women having their children taken out of their wombs with gun bayonetts. So I wouldn't be surprised by such attrocities to the khazar people as well.
It should be remembered that the young turk party was also responsible for another 1.5 million Greeks and Assyrians...1915 Genocide.
The beginning of the 20th century was pretty much a complete dark mark on European history. The entire continent just went completely bat-s#it crazy.
@AIFAHRA HORGGHRO Turks of the ruling classes from this time period would disagree.
Yes, but it has nothing to do with Irving lying about Nazi's persecution and genocide of the jews.
@@Knoloaify Just thought the same. . .
I have bought several of Irvine's books - My opinion is that he is a man of great integrity and professionalism - He tells the truth and the truth hurts the tribe - The Tribe is evil - as the present events in Gaza prove beyond any doubt.
Not the whole tribe some zionist
@@binder946 - who? name them.
@nine9n3 its all aipc, jdl and hedgefund media morddoor fed reserve its like a huge octopus with tentacles everywhere. International org like imf if bi's its hard to belief but its true.
Bis ifc. Shipping Co
Holding companies :"dark stone"
@@7sevenframes my buddy Roy. He's not in the syndicate. That's the dividing line as far as I can tell.
agreed
“Hitlers War” was the autobiography Hitler never wrote....
Damn. I read hitlers war and assumed it was accurate
@David Parry Dont you just hate it when you trip over in the morning and accidentily kill a few million people.
@KLOLWTF "mega cringe"
ruclips.net/video/8VEmni_QzYk/видео.html
@AIFAHRA HORGGHRO "Reading Hitler's books makes you anti-Semitic".I really hope that was sarcasm, you can't really be that dense.Books aren't magical, you know?You don't just open your brain so much that it falls out if you read something controversial.You should realistically only get informed about ideas wrote in it.
AIFAHRA HORGGHRO I’ve read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L Shirer, so does that make me a Nazi? I guess I’d better turn my US military uniform back in and start shouting “Seig Heil!” And clicking my heels at any reference to Hitler.
The biggest elephant in the room here is that the suggestion is being promoted that battling David Irving would harm the "Holocaust denial" community in general.
David Irving never was a prominent promulgator of what is called "Holocaust denial" in the first place. But, he got himself associated with this environment, which seemed to suffice to target him for that image nonetheless.
The actually much more proficient experts on this topic are people like Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf and Germar Rudolf, just to name the ones that pop up in my mind right away. There are more, but as far as I can tell, knowing at least them should already point away from the suggestion that David Irving was allegedly a "well versed" proponent of so-called "denial" ("so-called", because this is not about actual "denial", but about skepticism that is supported by much factual evidencing).
Irving got attracted to the "denial" scene, because he came to view the entire WWII subject from a different perspective than the conventional narrative suggests, which is perfectly understandable, considering the plethora of flaws, distortions, propaganda and blatant lies that pervade this topic. Once the usual bias has been abandoned, anyone scrutinising this subject is prone to encounter the general deceit that shrouds the narrative on WWII in Europe.
To my knowledge twice has the challenge been accepted from the "Denier" community to have there points debated publicly. Both of these two debates took place between M.Weber v Shermer & D. Cole v Shermer. Cole even gave Shermer all his talking points- two weeks prior and still was the clear loser. since youtube deleted but this archive.org/details/DavidColeInterviewOnMichaelShermerANCReport
@@nickhambly8610 If you believe you have mentioned here sufficient facts about the dispute between "deniers" and the defenders of the Truth, then you ought to have dug a bit deeper. Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman from the Simon Wiesenthal Center have been refuted by more proficient "deniers" like Carlo Mattogno. The issue however is that the usual channels, including Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, never properly responded to those refutations in the first place. "Deniers" are mostly only portrayed with their promulgations (alleged or real) if the defenders believe that they can be portrayed as thugs. Once "deniers" posit their arguments and seem to beat the defenders, the latter shift the goal posts and pretend that nothing happened.
@@Guido_XL on live tv?
@@nickhambly8610 When was Carlo Mattogno ever confronted by people like Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman? It does not matter whether such a debate would be conducted on TV or any other medium. It might just as well be somewhere on the internet, I don't care. The point is that the usual defenders of the story-telling on what became known as the Holocaust dodge the actually prominent representatives of the "denial" community, perhaps knowing very well that such a debate might not render the result they endeavour.
Every now and then, some debate appears on the internet, but mostly, the defenders of the conventional Holocaust narrative end such debates by pretending that they "won", whilst they ignore the response from the "deniers". Go figure.
Irving being rather popular and famous has erroneously become the proxy and symbolic target for those arguing against H denial and WW2 revisionism.
I trust him more than I trust you!! Sorry!
Not sorry!!
Than why watch him ?
Same here, David brought proof, impartially, simply. An honest historian.
@@spockofdune8657you don't know history. David is an imposter
Richard Evans is a court historian. David Irving is a truthful historian. It is your choice, which to read.
Richard Evans was not a court historian (whatever that is). He was a defense expert witness. He's also a history professor at Cambridge, a respect author, and an expert on modern German history. Irving is a proven liar and propagandist. Agreed, it is everyone's choice who to read, but know what those choices are.
@@Ocrilat 'proven' by a kangaroo court full of British establishment puppets*
I wonder who would've been a proven liar in, say, a court held in the third Reich?
I don’t believe any of it!
@@Ocrilathe got knighted mother trucker....
TIK, You and Evans seem to be saying that NOTHING Irving has ever written is trustworthy.
What about 'War between the Generals' and ''The Destruction of Dresden'?
Can you demonstrate that both these books are full of distortions?
In the trial the whole Dresden debacle was adressed, Irving got his sources from propaganda (for total deaths) but hey Lets give propaganda a chance, it's not like the nazi goverment would ever lie about anything
@@gonzalopelaez5649 but but Dresden was a cultural city that didn't even participate in the wars ☹☹☹
(Don't look at those thousands of troops using critical routes to go to the eastern front. Instead look at our pretty buildings 🙃🙃🙃)
@@jameslegrand848 that's a myth by propaganda yes It has cultural buldings but also amunition factories AND a school of sargents you can search It up
Jajajja i coudn't tell it was satarie im srry for the misunderstandig
Bart, you need to look into the history of TB47, which is in Evans' book.
Irving built part of his income on knowingly lying about the Dresden death toll. The city council ultimately confirmed contemporary accounts of the human loss.
"An independent investigation commissioned by the Dresden city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000."
Landeshauptstadt Dresden. Historikerkommission. Retrieved 13 February 2010
Dresden was a terrible endorsement of the insanity of war, but it was a legitimate target the bombing of which was immoral, not illegal.
@@jameslegrand848 Dresden bombings were fatal, and maybe unecessary as tons of refugees were in the city. But also troops,ammo and tanks were there too. Somehow nazis never regret the London blitz but whine about dresden.
Richard Evans saying that “ not one paragraph not one sentence...” of Irving is true, is being an absolute liar that knows that nobody will check or say that this is false because it’s a taboo. Intellectual dishonesty.
Evans, although excellent at what he does, is a rather hysterical WWII historian. Irving, fluent German speaker, is not. Far from it. Irving, like or loathe him, is factual, accurate and for me, Britain’s finest WWII historian.
@@kennyshortcake999 “Factual” - it has been proven many times that he omits information because it doesn’t fit the story he is trying to tell.
“Accurate” - despite his knowledge of the German language is very prone to mistranslating original texts to fit his story.
He has also had an obsession with Hitler, that borders on hero worship, since he was a young boy.
Evans’ hysteria about David Irving, Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in all its glory.
@@kennyshortcake999 Irving’s hysteria about Hitler...anything he’s ever written...wait...what are we doing here? Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
@@mattmunroe9901 ...and you know all this how exactly?
So now I need to know whether I can trust the work of Richard Evans.
You can trust it a lot more than Irving and his cult followers
Research the £75k bribe he took to smear Irving before you make up your mind.
@@davelowe1977 That "bribe" Wasn't a bribe. Lipstat, being the defence, hired Evans as an expert witness. For 2 years before the case went to court he combed through all of irving's work to see if what she said was leginiment.
Turns out, Irving cultist, *it was*
British liable law was stacked against the defendant from the onset, Irving was the prosecutor.
And Irving *l o s t*
And don't give me the 'it was a kangaroo court' c-ap. It was a leginiment court ruling, that is, if you've ever bothered to read the court transcripts. But you won't cause it de-legitimizes your 'messiah' Irving.
@@black-uh1df Irving does not have cult followers as far as I know.
@@davelowe1977 Interesting. Never heard of that. I do know Lipstadt was advised by her lawyers to say nothing during the court hearing and her ‘expert witnesses’ cost her side a lot of money which of course, Irving had to ultimately pay. Evans books are well worth reading in my opinion.
As an undergraduate Irving was mentioned in a lecture. During the summer vac I went to my local library and ask if they had any of his works. The woman went away and brought another librarian who asked, more or less why I wished to read him.
I explained that I was reading History, however he didn't seem convinced not even by the tweed jacket I was sporting at the time.
Reading Irving quite literally changed my life for the better.
Sounds like that library is run by a bunch of *Packed Faced Lefties* just don't borrow from there again!
@@shayneswenson how do lies, and distortions make your life better?
@@jeffmattes5446 You should ask yourself that question, since everything you think you know about that war is a lie and a distortion of the truth.
@@jeffmattes5446 Simple; you want to believe them. The above idiot, because of his comment, obviously needs a close eye keeping on him.
"His books wrong because this books right" lol absolute waffle.
Hah yea
the sources...
That's the source you cockwomble.
@@Ricky-oi3wvsorry bud but mark is right and you are wrong rickyboy
We simply cannot ignore everything that Irving wrote,Irvine went to Germany and lived among the Germans of that era and had access to many people and things that others did not. Lot's of books on the 2nd WW are simply a rehash of other peoples work but not Irvine,having said this,this is no excuse for blindly following every word that he says!
Irving's work has Always and will always check out! NO GAS CHAMBERS!!!!!!!!
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte
Thumbnail: "David Irving: Read or Avoid": If you'd present AVOIDANCE (rather than critical analysis) as an option, then it's PROBABLY something that I *SHOULD* read.
I'm not sure you understand, John. This very video IS a critical analysis of his material, hence the choice to avoid his work only AFTER reading it critically to see it isn't true. Very VERY strange logic you have going on there, saying things that tikhistory never even said or meant.
@@AR15andGOD Nah; I understand. T.H. runs his virtual mouth a lot against "naught seas"; he found out about David Irving; he didn't like the idea of anyone reading David Irving, and, coming to the conclusion that maybe the stock-story about the Hollow Cost isn't as accurate as it's generally believed to be. So, he made this video, in which he presents what he PURPORTS to be a facts-based critical analysis of David Irving, and, slapped a thumbnail onto it with the caption, 'David Irving: Read or Avoid' on it.
In short, this video has 'COVER-UP' written all over it.
So, to him, and, to you, I'd say, 'No; thanks; I'll read David Irving if I like; and, I'll draw MY OWN conclusions, and, keep MY OWN counsel, about it.
For future-reference: 1. Generally, if someone tries to get you to "AVOID" a book, it's because keeping you in the DARK about something serves THEIR purposes. 2. *NEVER* trust )ews.
😉
There’s a difference between reading as critical analysis and reading as fact. There’s no reason to waste countless hours reading through Irving’s catalogue when it’s full of inaccuracies if you’re not actively trying to analyze Irving’s writing style and the way he pushes inaccurate info.
How many original german war tims reports have you read, In german and not just read books that other guys wrote?
exactly
How many of those reports have you seen directly and not read Irvins version of , answer is none and you beleive what version you want.
@snowflakemelter none. I don't believe or trust either of them. But if push came to shove, having read archives in Berlin or Moscow seems to carry a tad more weight than having read Beevor or Ambrose.
@@davidprice7162 how do you know they haven't read the same public archives ?
@@snowflakemelter1172because, the Moscow archives at least, weren't available to anyone when they wrote their books. But it's cute how so very sure you people are of your truth.
@6:00 what you say is entirely subjective and your own analysis with no supporting evidence?
This guy is ridiculous when he claims he has the source that contradicts Irving's take but then he quotes from the book of the guy who criticised Irving. Where is the actual source? If there is one. What a charlatan. With his Mickey Mouse chanel
@@porcudracului Amen to that brother! TiK and his backer are simply tools of the zionist world order.
What isn't subjective is where Irving deliberately makes up a fictitious event to try support his theory 6:30😉
Read Irving yourself. Don’t listen to anyone else tell you what to think about anyone. Make your own mind up.
I concur. Read books. Specially good ones like his
You don't think he already has? He even quotes Irving.
@@coffeehousedialogue I’m going to assume you have misunderstood me. What I am saying is that people should read for themselves and not trust short format RUclips videos that are conveniently placed at the top of any David Irving search you put in (whereas any of David’s actual videos are hidden away). Doesn’t that tell you something?
@@pheebobobeanie7680 No, it doesn't. Shorter videos are the favored ones for everything. YT screwed over everyone. Don't act like Irving's special in this regard.
@@coffeehousedialogue Well, he is special in this regard because he’s being censored. If you don’t believe that then you’re obviously below par in terms of intelligence. I’m afraid to say there isn’t a cure for being soft.
Hmmm. I have studied Irving myself and have found that NO ONE has ever disproven anything he asserted. You are quoting a LAWYER with whom Irving was engaged in a legal suit -- so you are asking us to TAKE HIS WORD as "truth"? IF it were so easy to prove David Irving wrong, then why not do so by the numbers? WHY did they imprison him? Does not give one much faith in his persecutors and detractors. Yes, as far as I am concerned you must PROVE David Iriving wrong before I would ever give this any credence. I'll wait ;-)
Can you trust anything, Richard Evans wrote?
@Pep I hate nae, sayers.
@Pep "I don't trust what you have just wrote"?
I'm not a fan of Evans at all. But curtailing freedom of speech and expression is 100% unacceptable. If we empower the government to create ad hoc laws against of any opinion, whether popular or unpopular, makes us no better than Nazis.
The guy literally recommends a book by Richard Evans for you to read. The book it literally details and gives evidence. This isn't just Richard's opinion, he gose though literal historical documents.
clearly not
Interview him if you think you could handle it.
@Pep The premise behind videos like this is wrong so the whole analysis is invalid. Modern academic practice has become a joke in one sense and I'm an academic (in another field). What happens is that 95% of all books or papers are a rehash of previous ideas, then the author tacks on some small contribution at the end, thus adding some tiny originality and further validating an entrenched position by weight of volume but without actually doing research or actually checking anything. Historians probably call this secondary sourcing IIRC from school many years ago. Irving, on the other hand, spent literally decades finding people who were at the heart of WWII and unearthing original letters, orders and documents (like death masks, for example) that nobody else either bothered with, or could read, then wrote this primary information up. This is old school *proper* research which is rarely seen today. Then along comes little Tik who tries to argue that Irving's work is invalid because, essentially, all the other books say differently and because Irving lost a court case that was decided on the preponderance of evidence (they counted the books). Well, looking at the methodologies used, I know who I'd believe.
Over the years, I've followed up on David Irving's research. So far, there's very, very little of what he stated was untrue. Most of his research was done with first-hand witnesses, including next of kin of the top dogs in power. I'm not for one minute denying that attrocities took place, but from a war strategist's POV, it makes sense that Hitler's generals and indeed himself, would want to postpone the 'special actions', as he concentrated on initial battle tactics. He also wouldn't have wanted to globally taint his image so early in the war. But to completely disregard Irving based on his Lipstat trial is foolish. His definitive Hitler's War book cannot be disputed, even by his detractors.
Why does Irving place importance on key witness testimonies when it comes to National Socialists, or ‘top dogs’ as you say but when it comes to survivors of the holocaust and concentration camps he disregards eye-witnesses completely. Seems hugely biased. Also former top officials in the Third Reich have every reason to lie and save themselves and their ideologies reputation, and I would argue camp survivors had gone through such an ordeal there would be no benefit of lying because the truth was already so unbelievably devastating and diabolical. Lying would only hurt the truth. Irving bends the truth to his truth, and disregards truths that don’t meet his world view, plain and simple.
@@Noah-qp6oe because you can simply look at the facts and see these holocaust survivors are full of shit.
Masturbation death machines? Rollercoasters of death? Human lampshades? Get real.
@@MaxCadyS my guy there's literally a photo and eyewitness testimony of Americans who found the lampshade
And no Holocaust survivor ever claimed of a rollercoaster of death it was literally made up by Nazis to discredit Jews
And there's literally photo/documented evidence of the nazi collecting Jewish semen to prove they were inferior
@Pantokrator1 Actually it doesn't make any sense. Why would they want to postpone it? Because they were completely intertwined. Bolshevism sprang from judaism. The battle against one necessitated the battle against the other, They were not ambivalent about that in the least
@@kenon6968 The main aim was conquest of the German-speaking territories. Conquest costs money. The Jews, it seems, and especially the Jewish bankers were a drain on the economy, so they had to be evicted. The initial acceleration of the German's success only happened when the Reichsmark came into being. Delaying the 'Jewish' problem made sense, from a tacticians financial perspective.
I was a Patreon sponsor for Tik before this video was made. I asked him a question about this very issue, because I'm not an academic and didn't know, and Tik shat all over me. So I quit sending him money. This is the first Tik video I've watched in years. I 'm watching it to learn about what I'd asked him in the first place. Kind of wierd.
Tik most love Britain as it is today. So beautiful
Interesting comment. Thanks for relaying your experience.
This isn't the kind of question a person who is after the truth asks. "Can you trust it if it's written by x y z type of person" It's just a lazy cop out. The point is to read and THEN decide. VERY small minded, quite ironic! What would hitchens say?
yes, this is a lynch job, for $ in one form or another, as usual
I wouldn't trust someone like Evans to render a verdict about Irving or anyone else for that matter. Evans lives off his fancy titles but has a rather limited knowledge of the subject matter. Embarrassingly limited to be honest, he has an extremely thin skin too. Irving isn't some holy man, people make mistakes but academia and history lives off interpretations. It's not math where 1+1 are always 2. If you want to take on someone like Irving bring on an actual neutral expert who doesn't have a bias and who doesn't get paid a fortune to analyze the works for a sham interpretation.
i've read hitlers war my interpretation was, That he was just showing what was going on from hitlers perspective its in the name. war is horrible on all sides if you focused on the americans or the Japanese the australians or the Italians you'd find endless horrors, sociopaths can run wild especially when the war is a by all means war regardless of the consequences. but please please find a passage where he paints nazis is a postive light.
Now, what I'm saying here has little weight since David Irving has been found guilty before a court (edit: right, not guilty, but it was found that her statements regarding him being a Holocaust denier was substantiated...). But frankly, we do know he has an excellent grasp of the German language (I think the right word would not be "native" level but more like "academical" level ). Also, we cannot know if other sources perhaps also mention that story. Again, I'm not going on a crusade for David Irving, I'm simply saying that it's a lot more complicated than it may seem. Also, I'm a history lover and I have read (and listened) to many books from well known and less well known historians/writers and frankly: you can always find some bias. You almost always have a feeling that you are looking at something from "a good Allied point of view" or "a Nazi-apoligizer point of view". It's quite rare that a whole work feels utterly neutral. Irving was basically kicked in the butt for saying NOT that there was no Holocaust (he never said that AFAIK) but for saying that it had a smaller extent than many say. He mostly disputed the numbers. Not the fact. I'm not even sure how the heck can someone be called a denier when they have an issue with the dimensions and not the fact itself. Two million dead people is less sad than six million dead people? Aren't both equally terrible? - IMHO, it's best to read as many source as possible and it's inevitable that you find the discrepancies.
When was he found guilty in court???
OMG, anyone that tells the truth in this world are silenced ...look at what is happening today.......7/27'22 .....same thing!
Did you take their covid clot jab?
@@vic4rp Not sure what you mean?
Benjamin Netanyahu said just 3 days ago that A.H didn't try to eliminate them but to relocate them.
Interesting that the leader of the Israeli state says this publicly.
So anyone doubting Irvings claims now have access to hearing the truth from the horses mouth itself.
Irving deserves the world's grandest apology.
Please link this to me.
@@dolanpls3330I don't think there's any chance they will link it and I think I can guess why.
@wrichard11 Why?
@@dolanpls3330
1 it's been 2 weeks.
2 had Benjamin Netanyahu said such a thing it would have been widely reported.
Therefore my conclusion is that he never said such a thing so there is nothing to link to. Hope this helps.
@@wrichard11 Netanhayu had said that AH did not want to oof the juice at first but that a mufti had convinced him to do so.
oh boy This gonna be spicy
@De Profundis Yeah I've had that happen to me as well while making defenses of minorities or making perfectly reasonable arguements but using the wrong "keywords". The AIs still don't understand context.
@De Profundis it's hilarious that you say that "deniars get to claim they're being censored", as if they're not actively being censored. Pretty hilarious that's the problem. Not the censorship.
@@VACatholic Aerial photographs where taken by the Allied Air Forces during World War II over the camps , first exposed in 1978 by Dino Brugioni and Robert Poirer, two aerial photo-analysts who worked for the CIA.
Not a Single thing Claimed is Shown Piles of Bodies , None stop Flames , None stop billowing Smoke , Crushing machines , Pyres, Massive Pits . Nothing
4 April 1944
26 June
25 August
8 September
29 November
21 December
14 January 1945
Now Explain why Nothing is Shown as claimed in a single Recon photograph over the camps ?
Funny that would nt you say massive claims yet nothing is shown in Offical Allied Recon Phots that would prove the claims . LOLZ
@@parabot2 I agree with you. Deniars are also being censored.
@@VACatholic You can't Deny something that never happened .
I definitely stand with Irving on WW2, no other historian has come even close to the amount of research he’s done. I just bought “Hitlers War” by the great Irving himself. Looking forward to it.
You should also pick up “Lying About Hitler” by Richard J Evans.
@EnochWasRight How are wooden doors inconsistent with the idea of a gas chamber?
How many archives has Mr Evans visited? Germany? USSR? America? Or does Mr Evans "research" from his contemporaries books?
He visited the monetary archives of the GB establishment and the SPLC
So The dresden bombing is revisionist history now is it? SMH you lost all credit right there!!!!
Indeed, it was a major red flag for me.
I would like to see David Irving's translation of the Policeman's testimony along side Richard Evans'.
Did you know Evans was paid a lot of money by Lipstadt's defence fund?
Yes, the policeman claims that hitler denounced the raid on the kosher bakery as *it made the party look bad* nothing to do with the fact that hitler liked Jews
Yes and Steven Spelberg pumped 10 million into this case for Lipstadts defence. Money is why David Erving lost.
@@jamesmurrell3917 2 millions pound, not 10 million. Did you take the 10 million from Irving himself and taking it at face value or did you check it? If the later, I would love to see your source for it.
@@HansBohr So what 10 million, 2 million she had money pumped into the case to help her. Where did your source come from, or did you take Lipstadts word for it. I will call you a truth denier as you are going to call me a Holocaust denier.
@@jamesmurrell3917 I won't call you anything, you're more than an opnion so has is everyone. I'm asking you, what was your source for the number you claim. Simple question without trap. I'm sure you didn't invented the number, just provide the source for it.
In light of world events in 2022, the amount of PERSECUTION David has endured says much about his writings.
I, personally have tremendous respect for David based on what I've read and the interviews I've heard.
Persecution. He endured. He lost a fucking libel suit he brought forward. When in court he actually could not argue his own case and ended up admitting his own lies.
@Werner Pfeifenberger In his trial. He admitted to using the Leuchter report which he knew was a fabrication by a holocaust denier.
@Werner Pfeifenberger then evidence that you say cite all the sources that David Irving was right?
@Werner Pfeifenberger No. Not just like any history books. Whilst Irving does use primary sources he often adds wild interpretations to them so he can distort the truth
@Werner Pfeifenberger See video above. The exact reason being, he noticed that his pseudoscience had a market in the neo nazi scene. Most of his literature was bought by pseudohistorians.
Lets not forget, the testimony was in German; translations may vary.
True, but then again, Irving is fluent in German, and Evans can barely speak a sentence of it.
Your first example given by Richard Evans you say that Irving was trying to paint the picture that Irving was against violence toward the Jews when his real goal was to protect the party. But in Irving's quotation statement, he says that "Hitler acted to maintain order." So really, the officer's testimony is congruent with Irving. Evans's conclusion that Hitler maybe would have approved of the act if they left their party badge on is pure speculation. I don't see anything wrong with what Irving said at all. Very consistent. You're a hack.
By the way.....skunky Evans is not fluent in German...and didn't even know who Albert Speer was...
@Blanc Neige no he Can't either
@rdmountford3132 Evans is? He literally has a degree from the University of Hamburg, has written 18+ Books on Germany, and wrote his thesis paper in Germany.
Pretty sure, the guy who was friends with Rommel's wife, Hitler's body guard, and Hitler's generals staff. Plus, numerous field marshals has something interesting to say. Then, some armchair historian on RUclips.
The fact that he was friends with all those people make his conclusions even more suspect, would you trust someone who was friends with Stalin supporters who writes a positive outlook on Stalin? In case you don't know, the farther we go from a historic event, the less likely people are to hold bias regarding that event, so yes, trust the armchair historian more than the guy who was friends with Hitler supporters.
« Of course Molotov is truthful when he says that Stalin never did anything bad, he was friend with Stalin, Stalin’s friends, Stalin kids and numerous Soviet field marshals »
@azraeldemuirgos9518 you should be a Stalin supporter if you aren't a Hitler supporter. The whole thing about Stalin being comparable to Hitler relies on nazi sources to make him look worse, so you implicitly are doing legwork for nazi ideology by comparing Stalin to Hitler.
@@derek123wil0 You are funny, I will give you that... But why don't you back up your claims with actual points instead of sticking to ad hominem, Hitler and Stalin are both in the same category, absolutely horrendous, if you think Stalin, who murdered his own people in droves for Marxist ideology is somehow better than Hitler, then you need to register yourself into a psychiatric ward.
Friend of Nazis writes books that go soft on them and you don't see the fcking connection, what a dunce.
Why don’t you offer to debate Irving ? .......it would be like Charles Hawtrey in the ring with Tyson Fury ...but this Fury is aged 82
Becasue there is nothing to debate. Irving is a fraud. That uses the past to push his political agenda.
thunberbolt two Hi 👋, I’ve met him heard him speak his audience was multi racial a English Indian lady about 23 sat on the floor after his talk by his feet chatting to him he was a perfect gentleman giving her research advice for her degree , he touched on the enigma decodes of the ss messages from the sobibor , Treblinka , etc camps giving the daily murder count to Berlin ‘Murder’his word , not the rabid racist holocaust denier I had been led to believe by the the media but a extremely polite consummate historian....try and meet the man yourself and draw your own opinion not what the media tells us to think of people ....have a great day and stay save in these strange times 👍🏻
@@keithlane Yet he lies. That alone destroys his creadibility.
@@keithlane Funny Evans book proves that he LIES about ww2. I dont need to meet him. To not like him.
@@keithlane One needs to remember the line from the bible, "By their acts shall ye know them". Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Henry VIII, etc., could all be charming and speak in friendly terms with you. Until you got on their bad side, or were out of the public limelight and speaking in private. The fact that Irving writes books that paint a monster in a good light and, given all that we know Hitler was a monster who enjoyed watching generals who tried to kill him hung on meat hooks, says an awful lot about Irving. Remember, people like Ted Bundy are great people to be around, until they turn nasty.
"WWII was a good war". . .and yet many people are starting to question if it was a good war and how the West benefited from it. Maybe you should do the same.
It was good for creating Israel and reparations.
200mer Hist ..or ..ean has a goodV on that
Any historic work can be proven to be bad if you cherry pick. One cannot make a conclusion based on a few examples.
But it wasn't just a few examples, David Irving's work was absolutely mutilated at that trial.
@@terrorbird8957 read the transcripts? Or just watched a film?
Cannot question "The thing"
Cannot historically analyse "The thing"
Cannot even name it because RUclips will remove the comment
If you dare to ask questions about it your career , banking, business will be destroyed
I wonder if Tik would even be brave enough to debate on codoh
@@kzms4220 Zero chance of that ever happening. He would get trounced inside of ten minutes. He knows it, they know it, and we know it.
It all sounds convincing. But how do I know Richard Evans (I have nothing against him) didn't simply undertake to rubbish Irving's output for a fee? Why is this impossible?
Apparently he was paid 250k or 500k. I wonder why? 😛
@@tradingforbeginners First people claim it was 75k, then 100+, after that 200+, now 500k ffs how ignorant do you have to be to believe that, that would be worth less than just settling out of court. It is almost like when a book publisher is sued and money is at stake, a professional historian is going to need to eat and be paid for two years worth of work - shock horror
It's not. There where big heavy weights against him. Everyone has a drive to knowledge. Irving is no different to Kershaw or Hastings and as time goes by history will become even greater distorted. If you want the truth go to the original source. All historians are interpreters.
Irving is great historian
@@TheEvilAdventurer I couldn’t have put it better myself. It’s as if these people who talk about Evans being “bribed with £500K” have no concept on the fact that a person needs to be paid while he does his work to buy food and pay his bills.